Is there something like a subtle rūpa (subtle form) in the arūpa realm?

Discussion
1

If consciousness is dependent on nāmarūpa, how are realms like arūpa (formless realms) possible? Or is there something like a subtle rūpa (subtle form) in the arūpa realm?

1 Like
3

My understanding is that the “rūpa” of the arūpa realms are their corresponding objects, e.g. space, nothingness, etc. They aren’t material objects so much as objects of consciousness. rūpa has many meanings :sweat_smile:

ETA: The other explanation that occurs to me is that the karma to be reborn in an arūpa realm must have come from a lifetime when the being was in a form realm making karma. Remember that D.O. takes place over multiple lifetimes.

But I’m sure an abhidhammist can jump in with a more precise explanation.

2 Likes
4

This is the position of Sariputra Abhidharma, indeed:

復次，由憶想、假稱生受、想、思、觸、思惟，此謂名。十色入及法入色，此謂色。 Furthermore, feeling, conception, intention, contact, and thinking that arises from recognition and designation is called name. The ten form senses and the idea sense that’s form are called form.

Tradition harmonized this tension by saying that, like sound is to eye, Dharma is to mind, and in this case, Dharma is Rūpa.

However, that seems a bit convoluted to me. It feels like a mismatch of doctrinal content forced into fitting together. Since overcoming form without qualifiers is an explicit part of ayatana meditations:

Take a mendicant who, going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the disappearance of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, enters and remains in the dimension of infinite space. That goes beyond it. MN 66

Likewise for rebirth in these realms:

There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond perceptions of form. With the disappearance of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, they have been reborn in the dimension of infinite space.
Santi, bhikkhave, sattā sabbaso rūpasaññānaṁ samatikkamā paṭighasaññānaṁ atthaṅgamā nānattasaññānaṁ amanasikārā ‘ananto ākāso’ti ākāsānañcāyatanūpagā. AN9.24

I think this question is a good example of the kind of problems we get when reifying abstract notions into concrete realities. :sweat_smile:

1 Like
5

First we should exclude obvious logical contradiction. Arupa by the very definition has nothing in common with rupa.

Now, we should be able to use certain verbal definitions and descriptions skilfully, so we don’t create artificial problems.

So mutual dependence of namarupa and viññiana is the most general existential description of our samsaric enslavement. (No consciousness, no experience). And there is absolutely no any problem on existential level with arupa states. First of all consciousness is still dependently arisen on nama factor, that’s why puthujjana may attain arupa states and remain puthujjana. In the same way one can reborn in arupa states.

It is consistent with dependent arising: you see from it that consciousness depends on sankharas, and in arupa states consciousness is still dependent on perception in feelings.

There is so called hierarchy of truths, certain truths are valid only within certain set of experiences.

You question is based merely on unskilful application of logic, and lack of recognition that there is more important truth - structurally- namely dependence of consciousness on sankharas, and on the level of this truth absence of rupa, doesn’t change anything, consciousness is still dependently arisen. Only absence of all sankharas introduce radical change.

Do notice that the truth hierarchically less valid obeys the higher one, so namarupa itself is a determination or sankhārā on which consciousness depends.

1 Like
6

I asked this question because I have seen two different answers:

  1. That there is no rupa at all,

  2. Or that a subtle rupa is always present in consciousness.

Thanks, everyone.

1 Like
7

These beings lack all sense-bases other than the mind-base, meaning they don’t have consciousness rooted in the typical sense faculties like vision, hearing, and so on. I believe that they also can’t have any form of mental consciousness beyond the experience of the particular formless realm they inhabit (i.e., the Formless Jhāna that led to rebirth in that state). They don’t, for instance, have memories of past lives. All that these beings perceive or are conscious of is the specific formless state they exist in. Feelings are always neutral, and volition (sankhāra) is inherently tied to the particular jhāna state they attained.

Regarding the idea of these beings having a subtle form (rūpa) as a support for mental activity, some texts outside the suttas reference the concept of ārūpa brahmas as beings who have the four aggregates, but not form (rūpa). They are understood as existing without a physical body, yet still possessing the remaining aggregates (feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness). In this view, their mental activity would be independent of a physical support, purely occurring through the mind.

This interpretation is the prevalent view in traditional Theravāda circles. There are also suttas that refer to “gods who are formless and made of perception” (devā arūpino saññāmayā) in contrast to “gods who are formed and made of mind” (devā rūpino manomayā). The suttas I have found that mention this distinction are MN 60 and AN 5.166.

An alternative explanation suggests that these beings do have a rudimentary body, but its sole function would be to serve as a support for their mental activity. However, I haven’t found any ancient texts supporting this theory, and it seems more common among contemporary writers.

2 Likes